It would be more straightforward for the federal government to determine what a living wage should be for full-time workers, tax an amount sufficient to cover it, and just give it as a straight wage subsidy for every hour worked. Just restrict the subsidy to American citizens, limit the maximum subsidized time per week to 40 hours, and direct deposit it in an account in the each eligible person's name. Workers could negotiate any additional wages with their employer.

In addition to not needing an employer-mandated minimum wage, most immigration restrictions not related to crime and national security could be removed. Any immigrant who could "take yer jerb" without a subsidy would deserve it.

Setting the minimum wage close to the true living minimum wage floats all boats, and the economy grows much more quickly.

Let me get this straight: you think that if you work all day for $X, and that money is taken from you and given to someone else, who then gives that money back to you on the condition that you work another day for it, that you're better off? Dude, you've just been suckered into working for free.

Economics, for the most part, isn't very complicated. Learn the law of supply and demand and learn Say's Law. That's really all you need to get started.

Frederick:Mrbogey: If that kind of thinking was applied to all of America and we experienced 17% inflation on all prices across the board overnight there would be blood in the streets as our economy collapsed.

You seem to be forgetting that the scenario included doubled salaries.

For a small fraction who happens to work in fast food.

Keep in mind that fast food is often the most economic sustenance there is for poor people who don't have the access or knowledge to prepare food that isn't chemistry set in a bun. Doubling the salaries of the few while increasing food costs by almost one fifth for the rest is not going to make things better for most people.

GORDON:pueblonative: GORDON: Hmmm. How much would it cost if we cut their pay in half? Let's look into that instead.

Yeah cause there is no farking way the CEOs wouldn't just pocket the difference since the public is used to the price already.

I am willing to take that chance.

Given my subsidies of McDonalds and others I'm not so lets raise that minimum wage and get people off the welfare roles. And if they try to cut jobs and install robots...well, we've got less of a reason to give those tax cuts and goodies now, don't we?

Morelix looked at McDonald's 2012 annual report and discovered that only 17.1 percent of the fast-food giant's revenue goes toward salaries and benefits. In other words, for every dollar McDonald's earns, a little more than 17 cents goes toward the income and benefits of its more than 500,000 U.S. employees.

Some kid pulled down a 10-Q and did some bad math on the back of a napkin and that's what passes for a "study?" The math does nothing to predict that actual marginal cost per item of raising wages would be. Nor does it look at loss of revenue when consumers switch to other sources for fast food. This is why I don't click on most huff-n-puff pieces, the stupidity there is toxic.

ferretman:FTA: "In other words, for every dollar McDonald's earns, a little more than 17 cents goes toward the income and benefits of its <a data-cke-saved-href="http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/04/news/companies/mc donalds_jobs/index.ht m" target="_hplink">more than 500,000 U.S. employees."

Yes...there are no other costs besides employee pay and benefits. What the student hasn't taken into account, if minimum wage was doubled, the rising costs associated with the suppliers, the ones who manufacture the beef patties, chicken nuggets, soda syrup, shake mix, french fries, fish sandwiches, packaging suppliers, etc. These are all manufactured by other companies under contract to, in this case, McDonalds and are typically union-shops (at least on the east coast). If everyone's wages increase the product cost will increase and there will be less jobs.

Lets see... McDonald's spends 34% instead of 17%. Dollar menu becomes 1.17 menu however their workers have all DOUBLED what they make going from 7.25 to 14.50, hm... in economics that would be called a fantastic deal. Indeed I've seen companies spend more for less output on other projects.

So why not on their employees? The inflation effect that is claimed as force such huge production raises is much less than the increase in wages meaning there is more spending power for the employee. Heck that employee just might finally be able to feed his family at a McDonald's once a week now (meaning more business).

HeartBurnKid:Mrbogey: If that kind of thinking was applied to all of America and we experienced 17% inflation on all prices across the board overnight there would be blood in the streets as our economy collapsed.

Everybody's pay increases by 100%, cost of living increases 17%. Meaning everybody still has 83% more buying power than before. And you think people would be upset?

That's not how it works, which is why there would be a lot of pissed off people.

Everyone's salaries couldn't possibly double and leave only a 17% increase in total cost.

So if the wage is increased, then wouldn't McDonald's want to hire people who are worth that pay scale therefore shutting out the very people who supposedly need this pay raise? So the currently inept minimum wage workers would be out of work?

Bumblefark:Weaver95: ferretman:Yes...there are no other costs besides employee pay and benefits. What the student hasn't taken into account, if minimum wage was doubled, the rising costs associated with the suppliers, the ones who manufacture the beef patties, chicken nuggets, soda syrup, shake mix, french fries, fish sandwiches, packaging suppliers, etc. These are all manufactured by other companies under contract to, in this case, McDonalds and are typically union-shops (at least on the east coast). If everyone's wages increase the product cost will increase and there will be less jobs.

jst3p:super_grass: The problem is that there are naive people who think that everyone who works in fast food past 19 is some poor revolutionary put down by DA MAN. I don't have issues helping people find better employment while they bide their time flipping burgers, buy to say that burger flipping is some kind of career deserving of substantial compensation is nonsense.

Fair enough, but I don't see how the right can claim merit in "trickle down" economics, union busting, deregulation (among many other economic policies) and fight for tax cuts for the job creators, then biatch and moan about the number of food stamps. They see no correlation?

Because they conflated actual competition and voluntary cooperation with supporting the status quo thanks to decades of politically charged innuendo.

Mr. Eugenides:Morelix looked at McDonald's 2012 annual report and discovered that only 17.1 percent of the fast-food giant's revenue goes toward salaries and benefits. In other words, for every dollar McDonald's earns, a little more than 17 cents goes toward the income and benefits of its more than 500,000 U.S. employees.

Some kid pulled down a 10-Q and did some bad math on the back of a napkin and that's what passes for a "study?" The math does nothing to predict that actual marginal cost per item of raising wages would be. Nor does it look at loss of revenue when consumers switch to other sources for fast food. This is why I don't click on most huff-n-puff pieces, the stupidity there is toxic.

And if we were only raising the minimum wage on McDs you might have a point. We aren't.

So if the wage is increased, then wouldn't McDonald's want to hire people who are worth that pay scale therefore shutting out the very people who supposedly need this pay raise? So the currently inept minimum wage workers would be out of work?

At the McDonald's around here? I'd hope.

/ Once had the woman at the counter take a cell phone call and hand me my unfinished latte. "Here, stir this."

So if the wage is increased, then wouldn't McDonald's want to hire people who are worth that pay scale therefore shutting out the very people who supposedly need this pay raise? So the currently inept minimum wage workers would be out of work?

They'd be given cushy jobs in Fiddler's Green or the Big Rock Candy Mountains.

super_grass:CaliNJGuy: Frederick: Pray 4 Mojo: The Stealth Hippopotamus: 550 million Big Macs are sold in the US every year.

550,000,000 X .68 = 374,000,000.00

If McD thought they could just increase the price of their Big Mac and make an additional 374 million dollars don't you think they would have already done it?!?

This.

Pointless study is pointless.

/If you work at Mcdonalds in an attempt to support anyone other than yourself, at some point, you failed at life.

According to the sidebar article the average age of fast food workers is 28. You think we should just write off those people as "failed" and not consider seeing to it they have a reasonable means to contribute back to society?

Yes. If you are 28 and working the McD's counter you probably deserve to be there.

Depends.

There are losers and there are motivated people down on their luck.

The problem is that there are naive people who think that everyone who works in fast food past 19 is some poor revolutionary put down by DA MAN. I don't have issues helping people find better employment while they bide their time flipping burgers, buy to say that burger flipping is some kind of career deserving of substantial compensation is nonsense.

I agree w/the part I highlighted. But what is the split on that? 95%/5%. Problem is that the 95% losers all claim they are part of the 5%. "We're all special". Bullshiat. And to PocketNinja's point if you raise the entry level job's salary what do you do about the shift supervisor? What is their motivation to accept more responsibility if you do that? Where do you stop? That study is pointless because it is basically assuming if you just raise the salary of the min. wage jobs its problem solved. Not so. And if you are a burger flipper then min. wage is proper compensation. And if you say its not because some of them have BA's in Art History then I say they should have studied something else. I had a neighbor who paid for one of his daughters to get a Masters in Art History from USC. I have since moved and haven't seen them for years but last I saw her she was 3 yrs removed from that Masters and working at Kohls.

pueblonative:GORDON: pueblonative: GORDON: Hmmm. How much would it cost if we cut their pay in half? Let's look into that instead.

Yeah cause there is no farking way the CEOs wouldn't just pocket the difference since the public is used to the price already.

I am willing to take that chance.

Given my subsidies of McDonalds and others I'm not so lets raise that minimum wage and get people off the welfare roles. And if they try to cut jobs and install robots...well, we've got less of a reason to give those tax cuts and goodies now, don't we?

SO, your logic is thus:

1. Subsidize McD's employees by increasing minimum wage. We now pay more for Big Macs.2. This enables McD's employees to "get off welfare."3. This encourages HQ McD's to develop robots and cut 75% of the labor force.4. The low skill McD's employees are now out of work, on welfare, and we are still paying more for Big Macs because robots cost about the same as a $15/hour employee, once health care and benefit savings are rolled in.

Brilliant plan. Since robots will be less likely to fark up my order, I am willing to give that a shot.

Voiceofreason01:Abox: Why not let employers pay what the job is worth and have the government just pay welfare to people that need it? That way the cost of subsidizing low-value jobs doesn't fall entirely on the people providing those jobs and teenagers who aren't supporting a family aren't getting an artificially inflated wage.

Employers(mostly) don't pay low level employees what the job is worth, they pay the minimum that they can get away with.

The job is worth whatever it costs to get an employee to show up. The employer needs to operate at a profit. The law of supply and demand is in effect here. If there is a labour shortage, wages (and prices) go up. If there is a glut of labour, wages stagnate. The endless supply of poor, desperate (sometimes illegal) immigrants, young people entering the job market, and geezers in need of supplemental income combine to depress wages. Government should not subsidize an employer's decision to try to low-ball the prevailing market cost of labour.

So if the wage is increased, then wouldn't McDonald's want to hire people who are worth that pay scale therefore shutting out the very people who supposedly need this pay raise? So the currently inept minimum wage workers would be out of work?

Well those people would all just be paid a non-working minimum wage. We could probably get the kid from Kansas to do up a little study that shows it would only cost and additional 17% of your taxes to pay them not to work.

Let's face facts here people. Micky D's tastes like crap because it's been cost reduced to the extreme. Why? Because people like those of you reading this didn't want the price to go up as the value of the dollar drops. Micky D's 50 years ago was made from fresh ingredients on site. It was practically health food compared to today.

Wages have similarly suffered under the toll of inflation. Yet americans don't want to deal with the root cause problem. They want the fed being there for the too big to fails. They want the fed to print money for the wars and the social programs. So what's the answer? Double the wages of people who can't move beyond their high school job in fast food or retail. Of course they never say what to do with the people in jobs that require more skills and experience. But sometimes it's not their fault because the other thing the money masters have done, driven jobs out of the country.

It's always a battle to bring a product to market for a price people will pay. A battle not to raise that price on the shelf.

But I digress. What I really want to know is how much more people would pay for their various consumer goods so that engineers can regain in salary what they've lost to inflation and the market being flooded with immigrants on H1B visas. If you're willing to do it for your Big Mac, why not your cell phone, fridge, car, and countless other stuff that is still engineered in the USA. What are you going to do about the horrible way engineers are treated by corporations? Downsizings have made it a vagabond type career. Sure it's enough to live on but hardly worth the education and effort.... and everyone is saying how they have to get the kids into science and engineering for this country to get its competitive edge back... so do something about it... make it a career worth going into again.

marsoft:You forgot a major thing. The cost of employing someone is significantly higher than the salary or wages paid to that person.

Nope, didn't forget. The cost of employing someone starts high but decreases as training and assorted investments continue to be used and experience increases profitability of the employee for the company. Several associated costs, such as policies and facilities, decrease over time and have little relation to employing one person or another. Other costs, such as insurance, do not decrease. However, none of this is relevant since we are not speaking of employing additional people but paying those McDonalds is employing a higher wage; the cost of raising wages which is not strictly the cost of those wages is some meetings, paperwork, and data entry which is frankly paltry.

marsoft:Oh, and to stockholders/shareholders less of a profit is as bad as a loss.

Not sure why you told me this. Someone who mentions less profit does not equal a loss understands shareholders, markets, companies, etc., want to interpret this as such for all manner of reasons, else making this statement would be tautological because the reality is less profit is not a loss, this is lower than projected or comparative profit.

But please, continue to argue with my point which was companies do not operate at a zero profit margin.

keylock71:super_grass: A 30-something year old really shouldn't be looking at serious employment in these positions.

Yeah, in a perfect world, maybe, but in case you haven't noticed, we don't live in one of those... How about a 30 year old mill worker who got laid off and still has a family to support? How about the 30 year old rural resident with very few career opportunities? How about the 30 year old single mother who has to support her children?

Sometimes that minimum wage job is all that some people have available to them. it's real easy to pontificate on the internet when you're not in that position yourself.

You kind of ignored his original statement. How did this 'hypothetical' 30 yr old ignore his or her financial situation for probably about 10 years?

Lets assume 'your 30 year old friend' got this job at age 20...he/she should have been saving at least half of his/her income for the past 10 years. That would give you (sorry, 'your friend') plenty of time to to find a job similar to his/her old income (5 years).

You have other problems if it takes more than 5 years to replace your lost income. Perhaps you were just really overpaid to start with?

The_Original_Roxtar:Frederick: According to the sidebar article the average age of fast food workers is 28. You think we should just write off those people as "failed" and not consider seeing to it they have a reasonable means to contribute back to society?

yes.these people have failed.they provide no benefit to society.they only serve to produce more leeches upon society.

Pocket Ninja:Actually, another way to look at it would be to say that if you cut the average McDonald's worker's salary in half, to maybe $4.00 an hour or something like that, McDonald's would be able to CUT 68 cents from the price of their Big Macs. That would help make food much more affordable to other people, which might help reduce the almost universal dependency on Food Stamps that Obama has created.

Going even further, if McDonald's cut salaries to but cut the price of Big Macs by LESS than 68 cents, what would happen is that McDonald's would, overall, become more profitable. This, in turn, would give the corporation more money that would eventually find its way back to the very same workers who are supposedly now receiving "lower wages." It's not actually that their wages are getting lower, it's that they're getting less DIRECT money and more INDIRECT money. But it all works out the same in the end -- and, I'm not afraid to say, probably to the benefit of the employee. It's a well known fact that charitable donations are at their lowest ever now, after years of recession. But if profits were to start going up again? Why, it would be like Christmas year-round.

The reality is that life is not an Oprah show. McDonald's can't just walk into their restaurants tomorrow and point at everybody and say, "You get a raise, you get a raise, EVERYBODY GETS A RAISE." They'd love to, but they can't. Because, see, if they do that, everybody gets a raise, sure...but then the price of food goes up, which means even more people go on food stamps, which means profits drop, which means charitable donations drop as well -- and, in the end, everybody gets poorer. Everybody.

Have you ever watched lobsters, subby? A tank of them. Every now and then, one lobster will try to escape. He'll swim up to the top and be just about to get out of the tank. And do you know what those other lobsters will do? I'll tell you. They'll grab him and drag him back down. Right back down there with him.

The question isn't "how much would I need to raise McDonald's prices in order to increase wages".

The question is "what date are McDonald's workers going to be replaced with robots".

The technology is there today, and getting cheaper all the time. The cooking is half automated as it is. Finish the job and use a modified call center AI for the drive through. Then let people enter their own orders on kiosks with a token human or two to help as needed.

The higher you raise wages, the cheaper the tech looks, and the sooner that date is.

kg2095:ferretman: FTA: "In other words, for every dollar McDonald's earns, a little more than 17 cents goes toward the income and benefits of its <a data-cke-saved-href="http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/04/news/companies/mc donalds_jobs/index.ht m" target="_hplink">more than 500,000 U.S. employees."

Yes...there are no other costs besides employee pay and benefits. What the student hasn't taken into account, if minimum wage was doubled, the rising costs associated with the suppliers, the ones who manufacture the beef patties, chicken nuggets, soda syrup, shake mix, french fries, fish sandwiches, packaging suppliers, etc. These are all manufactured by other companies under contract to, in this case, McDonalds and are typically union-shops (at least on the east coast). If everyone's wages increase the product cost will increase and there will be less jobs.

While you make a good point in general, the study was not about raising the wages of the suppliers, just McDonalds' employees. In the real world it would probably have a cascading effect. I would be happy to pay $2 extra for a Big Mac if it meant that people were being paid adequately.

If that makes you happy, why don't you tip the person at McDonalds $2 for the Big Mac you buy?

ReapTheChaos:Marcus Aurelius: ferretman: FTA: "In other words, for every dollar McDonald's earns, a little more than 17 cents goes toward the income and benefits of its <a data-cke-saved-href="http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/04/news/companies/mc donalds_jobs/index.ht m" target="_hplink">more than 500,000 U.S. employees."

Yes...there are no other costs besides employee pay and benefits. What the student hasn't taken into account, if minimum wage was doubled, the rising costs associated with the suppliers, the ones who manufacture the beef patties, chicken nuggets, soda syrup, shake mix, french fries, fish sandwiches, packaging suppliers, etc. These are all manufactured by other companies under contract to, in this case, McDonalds and are typically union-shops (at least on the east coast). If everyone's wages increase the product cost will increase and there will be less jobs.

Thank God you are nowhere near reality.

Setting the minimum wage close to the true living minimum wage floats all boats, and the economy grows much more quickly.

While companies like Walmart and McDonald's probably could pay $15 and hour by only raising prices on each item they sell a few cents, most smaller businesses would go bankrupt if they had to pay that much. Not only that, but other people start demanding pay raises as well. People with skills and experience who were making $15-20 an hour before minimum wage went up are going to demand an appropriate raise as well, and by all rights they deserve it.

After a year or two, when all the wage and price increases have finally settled down, the economy will be right back to where it was before, and $15 an hour minimum wage wont buy a damn thing more than it did at $7.25.

Exactly. Price floors and ceilings are just as undesirable as subsidies /welfare. To head anyone off undesirable things are sometimes needed. Most of the people in here fail to grasp a basic concept of elasticity. Things do not operate in a bubble. Even within the bubble this study creates its garbage. If you raise labor costs 50% and raise unit cost ~15-20% you will have to cut labor or some other cost to make up for the lost sales. If you look outside of this stupid study its easy to see that the market will go back to near the same position it was at. If minimum wage increases labor cost increase prices increase this would happen across the entire economy.

Working at a minimum wage job is not a life plan. This isn't bootstrappy that is a fact. If you've work a minimum wage job for over 10 years you have some problems that aren't economic. Adjusting the minimum wage is fine this study doesn't offer anything of substance to help with doing that.

Mrbogey:HeartBurnKid: Mrbogey: If that kind of thinking was applied to all of America and we experienced 17% inflation on all prices across the board overnight there would be blood in the streets as our economy collapsed.

Everybody's pay increases by 100%, cost of living increases 17%. Meaning everybody still has 83% more buying power than before. And you think people would be upset?

That's not how it works, which is why there would be a lot of pissed off people.

Everyone's salaries couldn't possibly double and leave only a 17% increase in total cost.

I was only indulging your fantasy scenario there. You know, if "this kind of thinking" was applied across the board or whatever.

ferretman:FTA: "In other words, for every dollar McDonald's earns, a little more than 17 cents goes toward the income and benefits of its <a data-cke-saved-href="http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/04/news/companies/mc donalds_jobs/index.ht m" target="_hplink">more than 500,000 U.S. employees."

Yes...there are no other costs besides employee pay and benefits. What the student hasn't taken into account, if minimum wage was doubled, the rising costs associated with the suppliers, the ones who manufacture the beef patties, chicken nuggets, soda syrup, shake mix, french fries, fish sandwiches, packaging suppliers, etc. These are all manufactured by other companies under contract to, in this case, McDonalds and are typically union-shops (at least on the east coast). If everyone's wages increase the product cost will increase and there will be less jobs.

But those people aren't paid by McDonald's. They're paid by their respective companies. Maybe they should be paid more, but maybe they're paid well enough.

GORDON:pueblonative: GORDON: pueblonative: GORDON: Hmmm. How much would it cost if we cut their pay in half? Let's look into that instead.

Yeah cause there is no farking way the CEOs wouldn't just pocket the difference since the public is used to the price already.

I am willing to take that chance.

Given my subsidies of McDonalds and others I'm not so lets raise that minimum wage and get people off the welfare roles. And if they try to cut jobs and install robots...well, we've got less of a reason to give those tax cuts and goodies now, don't we?

SO, your logic is thus:

1. Subsidize McD's employees by increasing minimum wage. We now pay more for Big Macs.2. This enables McD's employees to "get off welfare."3. This encourages HQ McD's to develop robots and cut 75% of the labor force.4. The low skill McD's employees are now out of work, on welfare, and we are still paying more for Big Macs because robots cost about the same as a $15/hour employee, once health care and benefit savings are rolled in.

Brilliant plan. Since robots will be less likely to fark up my order, I am willing to give that a shot.

Sure they will, sweet cheeks. That's why Watson cleaned up on Chopped after winning big on jeopardy. As for all of these fast food companies suddenly developing amassive R & D budget: if they could have done it they would have, so please procede,sodomites. Oh, but don't expect any tax breaks for Johnny 5 short circuit order chef.

SomeAmerican:The question isn't "how much would I need to raise McDonald's prices in order to increase wages".

The question is "what date are McDonald's workers going to be replaced with robots".

The technology is there today, and getting cheaper all the time. The cooking is half automated as it is. Finish the job and use a modified call center AI for the drive through. Then let people enter their own orders on kiosks with a token human or two to help as needed.

The higher you raise wages, the cheaper the tech looks, and the sooner that date is.

You may not realize it, but you've actually made a cogent point. More automation means less jobs are available for the same pool of workers. We're going to have to confront the issue of what happens when you simply don't have enough jobs to go around.

DerpHerder:ReapTheChaos: Marcus Aurelius: ferretman: FTA: "In other words, for every dollar McDonald's earns, a little more than 17 cents goes toward the income and benefits of its <a data-cke-saved-href="http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/04/news/companies/mc donalds_jobs/index.ht m" target="_hplink">more than 500,000 U.S. employees."

Yes...there are no other costs besides employee pay and benefits. What the student hasn't taken into account, if minimum wage was doubled, the rising costs associated with the suppliers, the ones who manufacture the beef patties, chicken nuggets, soda syrup, shake mix, french fries, fish sandwiches, packaging suppliers, etc. These are all manufactured by other companies under contract to, in this case, McDonalds and are typically union-shops (at least on the east coast). If everyone's wages increase the product cost will increase and there will be less jobs.

Thank God you are nowhere near reality.

Setting the minimum wage close to the true living minimum wage floats all boats, and the economy grows much more quickly.

While companies like Walmart and McDonald's probably could pay $15 and hour by only raising prices on each item they sell a few cents, most smaller businesses would go bankrupt if they had to pay that much. Not only that, but other people start demanding pay raises as well. People with skills and experience who were making $15-20 an hour before minimum wage went up are going to demand an appropriate raise as well, and by all rights they deserve it.

After a year or two, when all the wage and price increases have finally settled down, the economy will be right back to where it was before, and $15 an hour minimum wage wont buy a damn thing more than it did at $7.25.

Exactly. Price floors and ceilings are just as undesirable as subsidies /welfare. To head anyone off undesirable things are sometimes needed. Most of the people in here fail to grasp a basic concept of elasticity. Things do not operate in a bubble. Even within the bub ...

I missed the part where you proved that you immediately lose X sales if a product costs X amount more. In your own stupid words, "things do not operate in a bubble." You're just modeling the results based on how you're framing your bubble. I don't have to prove it either way, but your economic model is as brokenly simplistic as what you're trying to refute.

This is false. Companies lessen their profits all the time as the value of the dollar drops and costs increase. It's the last step before increasing the price. People have in their minds what they will pay for something. People don't give two farks about how much people are being paid or how much raw materials cost or anything else. If people would pay $4.67 for a Big Mac, that's what it would be priced at right now. People only want to pay $3.99 for a Big Mac. So if you raise the costs of the big mac 68 cents then margin has to be reduced and/or other costs have to be cut to compensate. Otherwise if the price goes up and fewer people will buy them driving profits down. The idea is maximize over all profits, not profits per unit.

Micky D's is a low margin, high volume business. They cannot lose volume. So if you want to increase labor costs then there will be less beef in the patties, the bun will be made with more cheap chemicals, more stuff will be premade in factories and warmed at the location to drive down the number of people needed to be working. They'll cut margins too so long as it is less of a hit than raising the price. Anything to take that cost back out and keep that Big Mac at the price in numerical dollars people are willing to pay.

Aarontology:ferretman: If everyone's wages increase the product cost will increase and there will be less jobs.

So when are you going to go ask your boss for a reduction in your pay in order to create jobs?

Successfully self employed, could hire but taxes on small businesses is 39.6% (Federal - thanks Obama), plus state taxes...also have mortgage costs and utility costs and other employe's costs plus their healthcare.

howdoibegin:DerpHerder: ReapTheChaos: Marcus Aurelius: ferretman: FTA: "In other words, for every dollar McDonald's earns, a little more than 17 cents goes toward the income and benefits of its <a data-cke-saved-href="http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/04/news/companies/mc donalds_jobs/index.ht m" target="_hplink">more than 500,000 U.S. employees."

Yes...there are no other costs besides employee pay and benefits. What the student hasn't taken into account, if minimum wage was doubled, the rising costs associated with the suppliers, the ones who manufacture the beef patties, chicken nuggets, soda syrup, shake mix, french fries, fish sandwiches, packaging suppliers, etc. These are all manufactured by other companies under contract to, in this case, McDonalds and are typically union-shops (at least on the east coast). If everyone's wages increase the product cost will increase and there will be less jobs.

Thank God you are nowhere near reality.

Setting the minimum wage close to the true living minimum wage floats all boats, and the economy grows much more quickly.

While companies like Walmart and McDonald's probably could pay $15 and hour by only raising prices on each item they sell a few cents, most smaller businesses would go bankrupt if they had to pay that much. Not only that, but other people start demanding pay raises as well. People with skills and experience who were making $15-20 an hour before minimum wage went up are going to demand an appropriate raise as well, and by all rights they deserve it.

After a year or two, when all the wage and price increases have finally settled down, the economy will be right back to where it was before, and $15 an hour minimum wage wont buy a damn thing more than it did at $7.25.

Exactly. Price floors and ceilings are just as undesirable as subsidies /welfare. To head anyone off undesirable things are sometimes needed. Most of the people in here fail to grasp a basic concept of elasticity. Things do not operate in a bubble. Even wi ...

If doubling the wages of the McD's counter employee causes the price of a Big Mac to increase, but the salary of the Dollar store worker remains the same, do you propose that the number of Big Mac's purchased by the Dollar store employee will increase, decrease or remain the same?

TuteTibiImperes:ferretman: FTA: "In other words, for every dollar McDonald's earns, a little more than 17 cents goes toward the income and benefits of its <a data-cke-saved-href="http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/04/news/companies/mc donalds_jobs/index.ht m" target="_hplink">more than 500,000 U.S. employees."

Yes...there are no other costs besides employee pay and benefits. What the student hasn't taken into account, if minimum wage was doubled, the rising costs associated with the suppliers, the ones who manufacture the beef patties, chicken nuggets, soda syrup, shake mix, french fries, fish sandwiches, packaging suppliers, etc. These are all manufactured by other companies under contract to, in this case, McDonalds and are typically union-shops (at least on the east coast). If everyone's wages increase the product cost will increase and there will be less jobs.

More people earning more money will allow them to spend more in their local economies supporting other businesses that will then earn more profits and be able to expand hiring more employees and creating more jobs.

That argument is as full of magic and pixie dust as trickle-down economics.

Marie Antionette, when told there was no bread for the commoners, said "let them eat cake."

No, that is a lie that the left likes to hang on to.

But did Marie-Antoinette really say those infuriating words? Not according to historians. Lady Antonia Fraser, author of a biography of the French queen, believes the quote would have been highly uncharacteristic of Marie-Antoinette, an intelligent woman who donated generously to charitable causes and, despite her own undeniably lavish lifestyle, displayed sensitivity towards the poor population of France.

So you're right. She's not a good example of the Modern Conservative at all.

cowgirl toffee:When I read this, I was pissed. I was pissed because I had made less working with special needs clients and getting my ass punched on a daily basis. I could have made more. PLUS, burgers won't hit because they can't express their feelings. *pout*